Women Savers INTEND TO Retire On £168k, While Men HAVE A MUCH £255k 1

Women Savers INTEND TO Retire On £168k, While Men HAVE A MUCH £255k

Women savers are on course to finish up with pension pots two thirds how big is men’s, research reveals. They have a much £168,006 on average when they retire, compared with the £255,328 pots men foresee retiring on, regarding a family prosperity survey by financial services firm Brewin Dolphin.

Lower pay, and profession breaks to look after family remain holding back women’s ability to save for old age – but young generations are better off than those currently reaching retirement. Women are retiring on pension funds a fifth the size of men at age 65, with average savings of £35,800 versus £179,000 held by men, but uncovered a written report by the Chartered Insurance Institute last. Why do men and women in a different way to make investments?

Are you saving enough for pension? And they are putting aside less every month than men, with women conserving 9.4 % of their net gain in comparison to 11.4 % by men. However, it is easy to get sucked into stereotypes about the differences between women and men when investing. We realize that attitudes to finance are driven as much by demographic and social factors like education, employment status, and financial circumstances because they are by gender.

Plus when Japan (main countries to visit for QE after 2,000) announced its purpose to put into action QE in early 2001, there was no obvious effect on the Yen/Dollar exchange rate. To be exact, the Yen dropped about 5% over the next year but then strengthened about 10% over the next two years. And note that those signing the notice included a lot of people right at the top of the economics profession. For instance Sir John Vickers was one of the signatories. He chaired the so-called “Vickers report” which was the main official UK authorities’ response to the 2007/8 bank or investment company crisis. That doesn’t induce me to have much faith in Sir John’s ideas on the bank or investment company reform.

  • Cost control
  • Ask for owner financing
  • 19 Units in Garland – 9.5% Cap – REDUCED to $495,000
  • Business interest
  • Equity: $600
  • Banks should not be under any formal regulatory enforcement actions

Another signatory was Olivier Blanchard who at that time was the IMF’s chief economist. But as I’ve described in previous articles on this blog, the IMF is clueless. And Bill Mitchell (who like me supports MMT) respect the IMF as being so incompetent that we’d all be better off it was shut down. Another signatory was Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard economist.

Again, I have dealt with his incompetence previously. The economics profession is a gentlemans’ club. So why will this incompetence persist? Why revisit a letter written this year 2010? For the advantage of any readers wanting to know what the main point is of digging up a notice in the newspapers almost a decade later, the first reason is that of course financial history is interesting always. But more particularly some of the signatories of the letter have been aiming to claim recently that they never opposed stimulus or money printing in virtually any shape or form. But that’s just an example of a well-known and predictable trend: first they criticize you, then they question you, then they copy you.